One poorly worded paragraph in Trump's deal with Iran is tearing the whole thing apart https://
https://x.com/RezaNasri1/status/2075551360922038340
Had Trump been the deal-maker he claims to be, an interpretive disagreement would have been settled through the mechanisms the MoU already provides.
Instead, he answered every disagreement with Iran over the implementation of the MoU with threats, renewed military operations, and restored sanctions, breaching the agreement far more gravely than any wording of Article 5 or any other provision ever could.
Consider what he violated since the agreement was signed: Article 1 commits both parties to permanently end hostilities and to refrain from the threat or use of force, a principle also enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Article 2 requires respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. Article 5 was breached by the creation of an alternative route that displaces Iran’s designated role under the agreement. Article 9, meanwhile, expressly required the United States to impose no new sanctions, deploy no additional forces, and maintain the status quo pending a final deal.
In practice, any dispute over a single clause quickly became a pretext for repudiating several others.
The problem is not a misreading of wording. It is the conduct of a party that treats every obligation as binding on the other side alone and discretionary for itself, and every ambiguity as an opportunity to apply pressure.
If Washington will not honour an interim understanding it signed only weeks ago, Tehran has no reason to trust it with a final agreement. The current impasse is the predictable result of the same coercive posture Trump, like his predecessors, has consistently chosen vis-a-vis Iran.
The only way out is a change of approach. He is unlikely to take it, because he is not the deal-maker he claims to be, and because his policy ultimately serves the interests of Israel, not of peace.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home